View Full Version : Islamist censorship reaches America
Adrian II
08-18-2008, 21:15
Who'd have thunk. A major American publishing house pulls a novel about Mohammed (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121797979078815073.html?mod=googlenews_wsj) for fear of reprisals. Maybe some other publisher will touch it, but it is a sign of the times.
The series of events that torpedoed this novel are a window into how quickly fear stunts intelligent discourse about the Muslim world.How depressingly familiar.
Louis VI the Fat
08-18-2008, 21:36
It's an epidemic! Lemur's Disease (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1985130&postcount=16) strikes again.
Though granted, I buried it in one of my confused neo-Fragonian rants. :wall:
Adrian II
08-18-2008, 21:42
It's an epidemic! Lemur's Disease (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1985130&postcount=16) strikes again.
Though granted, I buried it in one of my confused neo-Fragonian rants. :wall:I appreciate your Cartesian candour. Said rant indeed escaped my attention. But the subject is worth a thread of its own, no? Maybe you can organise your thoughts this time.
ICantSpellDawg
08-18-2008, 21:46
That is old news. Another publisher will publish the work as soon as the original is sued and the profits will be higher than they would had the first press just done the damn thing.
Louis VI the Fat
08-18-2008, 21:48
I appreciate your Cartesian candour. Said rant indeed escaped my attention. But the subject is worth a thread of its own, no? Maybe you can organise your thoughts this time.It is certainly deserving of its own thread.
My thoughts defy the restraints of outdated, traditional organisation. :sweatdrop:
PanzerJaeger
08-18-2008, 23:25
Why are muslims so afraid to face the truth about their great founder?
Christianity is constantly bombarded with all sorts of unsavory theories about Jesus, including such gems as the speculation that he was having an illicit relationship with a prostitute, had a family with said prostitute, was a terrorist, was gay, was a bastard from an affair, etc; yet Christians soldier on secure in their faith.
On the other hand, muslims seem to have a hard time with any critical assessment of Mohamed, even based off of what is written in the Koran itself - much less a broader historical analysis.
IMO, this hostility to any historical review of Mohamed is due to the knowledge that - when viewed in the fullness of history - the man seems little more than your average ruthless warlord with the typical self-constructed aura most came with.
Of course, it is not for me to say whether it is better to worship the leader of a small Jewish sect of social rejects or a genocidal demagogue with a penchant for little girls. :shrug:
Hosakawa Tito
08-18-2008, 23:43
If OJ can get published for his confess...er...I mean theory, then someone will publish this if it is deemed profitable.
Rhyfelwyr
08-19-2008, 00:10
Christianity is constantly bombarded with all sorts of unsavory theories about Jesus, including such gems as the speculation that he was having an illicit relationship with a prostitute, had a family with said prostitute, was a terrorist, was gay, was a bastard from an affair, etc:
I shall be sending a PM to a moderator to have this offensive post removed.
Christian censhorship just reached the Backroom. :2thumbsup: :clown:
CountArach
08-19-2008, 00:42
I shall be sending a PM to a moderator to have this offensive post removed.
Christian censhorship just reached the Backroom. :2thumbsup: :clown:
:laugh4: That made my day :laugh4:
Christianity is constantly bombarded with all sorts of unsavory theories about Jesus, including such gems as the speculation that he was having an illicit relationship with a prostitute, had a family with said prostitute, was a terrorist, was gay, was a bastard from an affair, etc; yet Christians soldier on secure in their faith.
I have yet to see a book about Jesus being a mass murdering pedophilic pirate. However, I have seen books about how Islam is a corrupt and mass murdering religion, and how Mohammed was nothing more than a pedophile. Funny, isn't it?
Devastatin Dave
08-19-2008, 04:00
"mass murdering pedophilic pirate" make me horny. Praise Allah, all hail Xenu!!!
I have yet to see a book about Jesus being a mass murdering pedophilic pirate. However, I have seen books about how Islam is a corrupt and mass murdering religion, and how Mohammed was nothing more than a pedophile. Funny, isn't it?
When you put it that way...yes.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
08-19-2008, 04:11
When you put it that way...yes.
Uh, not really. For one thing, Jesus didn't marry - or, for that matter, have a lot of very young wives. For another thing, Da Vinci Code. Didn't ban that, did we? We treated it for what it was - fiction.
Uh, not really. For one thing, Jesus didn't marry - or, for that matter, have a lot of very young wives. For another thing, Da Vinci Code. Didn't ban that, did we? We treated it for what it was - fiction.
No. Not what I mean. hearing jesus being protrayed as a "mass murdering pedophilic pirate" is very silly (what with the mental images and all), and gave me a decent chuckle.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
08-19-2008, 04:19
No. Not what I mean. hearing jesus being protrayed as a "mass murdering pedophilic pirate" is very silly (what with the mental images and all), and gave me a decent chuckle.
Ah. I see.
Uh, not really. For one thing, Jesus didn't marry - or, for that matter, have a lot of very young wives. For another thing, Da Vinci Code. Didn't ban that, did we? We treated it for what it was - fiction.
http://www.dawn.com/2006/06/05/top18.htm
http://www.cinematical.com/2006/05/17/da-vinci-code-banned/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4750283.stm
http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/Movies/06/08/vincicode.china/index.html
http://www.newsflash.org/2004/02/hl/hl104011.htm
http://www.hindu.com/2006/06/02/stories/2006060220780100.htm
I don't see how having many wives has anything to do with anything, seeing as it was common practice back then.
Oh, and here you go.
https://i264.photobucket.com/albums/ii174/AnthonyKnife/donotinsultislam.jpg
https://i264.photobucket.com/albums/ii174/AnthonyKnife/350px-Davinciprotestor.jpg
No. Not what I mean. hearing jesus being protrayed as a "mass murdering pedophilic pirate" is very silly (what with the mental images and all), and gave me a decent chuckle.
Same for me when I hear that about Mohammed.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
08-19-2008, 05:32
http://www.dawn.com/2006/06/05/top18.htm
http://www.cinematical.com/2006/05/17/da-vinci-code-banned/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4750283.stm
http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/Movies/06/08/vincicode.china/index.html
http://www.newsflash.org/2004/02/hl/hl104011.htm
http://www.hindu.com/2006/06/02/stories/2006060220780100.htm
Where was it banned in the West or due to fear of reprisals?
https://i264.photobucket.com/albums/ii174/AnthonyKnife/donotinsultislam.jpg
https://i264.photobucket.com/albums/ii174/AnthonyKnife/350px-Davinciprotestor.jpg
They can protest all they like. Won't make a difference.
Where was it banned in the West or due to fear of reprisals?
They can protest all they like. Won't make a difference.
The fact that it was still banned due to Christains goes to show that Muslims are not the only ones getting things blocked.
They can protest, yes, but when Muslims protest, they're trying to destroy freedom of speech.
Devastatin Dave
08-19-2008, 05:43
The fact that it was still banned due to Christains goes to show that Muslims are not the only ones getting things blocked.
They can protest, yes, but when Muslims protest, they're trying to destroy freedom of speech.
Yes their the same, except for the riots, beheading, and other little nasty little things, but besides that, they're exactly alike!!!:beam:
Yes their the same, except for the riots, beheading, and other little nasty little things, but besides that, they're exactly alike!!!:beam:
Oh please. You do know the purpose of terrorism? It's to inspire terror, the extremists managed to do it in this case. Do you think every Muslim calls for the killings of foreigners? That's like saying all Christains agree with the Phelps family.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
08-19-2008, 06:08
Oh please. You do know the purpose of terrorism? It's to inspire terror, the extremists managed to do it in this case. Do you think every Muslim calls for the killings of foreigners? That's like saying all Christains agree with the Phelps family.
I think the Phelps family is a rather smaller minority among Christianity than the extremists are among Muslims.
I think the Phelps family is a rather smaller minority among Christianity than the extremists are among Muslims.
Yet still a loud minority.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
08-19-2008, 06:17
Yet still a loud minority.
Sure. A loud group with a hundred-odd people.
Sure. A loud group with a hundred-odd people.
Does it make them any more acceptable?
Evil_Maniac From Mars
08-19-2008, 06:31
Does it make them any more acceptable?
Nope. But less deadly.
Nope. But less deadly.
Can you at least admit every religion has violent extremists?
Islam, like societies/cultures/religions, need time to evolve. I personally think it won't be long before the people start making serious changes to Islamic states.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
08-19-2008, 06:36
Can you at least admit every religion has violent extremists?
Yep, no problem.
Yep, no problem.
At least you're making some progress.
when viewed in the fullness of history - the man seems little more than your average ruthless warlord with the typical self-constructed aura most came with.
So I'm guessing you think Jesus was nothing more than your average man?
(Christain, if you're wondering)
Banquo's Ghost
08-19-2008, 06:54
Why are muslims so afraid to face the truth about their great founder?
This is an excellent question (though "the truth" is rather challenging applied to a 7th century person - I would rather suggest an unwillingness to explore the nature of Mohammed). Johann Hari wrote an thought provoking (http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-we-need-to-stop-being-such-cowards-about-islam-894361.html) article some days ago that considers the damage this refusal causes.
Reinterpretation and ridicule crow-barred Christianity open. Ask enough tough questions and faith is inevitably pushed farther and farther back into the misty realm of metaphor – where it is less likely to inspire people to kill and die for it. But doubtful Muslims, and the atheists who support them, are being prevented from following this path. They cannot ask: what does it reveal about Mohamed that he married a young girl, or that he massacred a village of Jews who refused to follow him? You don't have to murder many Theo Van Goghs or pulp many Sherry Joneses to intimidate the rest. The greatest censorship is internal: it is in all the books that will never be written and all the films that will never be shot, because we are afraid.
We need to acknowledge the double-standard – and that it will cost Muslims in the end. Insulating a religion from criticism – surrounding it with an electric fence called "respect" – keeps it stunted at its most infantile and fundamentalist stage.
Devastatin Dave
08-19-2008, 07:00
At least you're making some progress.
By progress would you mean ignoring the dispurportionate percentage of violent muslims compared to all other religions? Moral relativism is so adorable.:2thumbsup:
By progress would you mean ignoring the dispurportionate percentage of violent muslims compared to all other religions? Moral relativism is so adorable.:2thumbsup:
Link please.
This is an excellent question (though "the truth" is rather challenging applied to a 7th century person - I would rather suggest an unwillingness to explore the nature of Mohammed). Johann Hari wrote an thought provoking (http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-we-need-to-stop-being-such-cowards-about-islam-894361.html) article some days ago that considers the damage this refusal causes.
Reinterpretation and ridicule crow-barred Christianity open. Ask enough tough questions and faith is inevitably pushed farther and farther back into the misty realm of metaphor – where it is less likely to inspire people to kill and die for it. But doubtful Muslims, and the atheists who support them, are being prevented from following this path. They cannot ask: what does it reveal about Mohamed that he married a young girl, or that he massacred a village of Jews who refused to follow him? You don't have to murder many Theo Van Goghs or pulp many Sherry Joneses to intimidate the rest. The greatest censorship is internal: it is in all the books that will never be written and all the films that will never be shot, because we are afraid.
We need to acknowledge the double-standard – and that it will cost Muslims in the end. Insulating a religion from criticism – surrounding it with an electric fence called "respect" – keeps it stunted at its most infantile and fundamentalist stage.
Very good article. Again, I think soon enough Muslims are going to start making changes to their governments and culture for the better :2thumbsup:
By progress would you mean ignoring the dispurportionate percentage of violent muslims compared to all other religions? Moral relativism is so adorable.:2thumbsup:
Besides, most of the numbers are probably composed of fools who were led astray by the extremists. Thoughts of rewards in heaven, the calling of the expelling of the "murdering occupiers", who, as the extremists say, will kill your family tomorrow. And of course, there is always the revenge factor. How any insurgent and terrorist volunteers do you think had their family killed during the ongoing wars? I'm not trying to blame extremism on America, but, if you manage to persuade the man who's wife died in Fallujah during the fighting that America killed her, well, you got a recruit.
Devastatin Dave
08-19-2008, 07:18
I'm not trying to blame extremism on America, but, if you manage to persuade the man who's wife died in Fallujah during the fighting that America killed her, well, you got a recruit.
America was not in Fallujah on September 10th, 2001.
America was not in Fallujah on September 10th, 2001.
Err.....what? I'm pretty sure the numbers of volunteers swelled with the War in Iraq.
Devastatin Dave
08-19-2008, 07:24
Link please.
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
This is the best site I've found to keep tabs on the religion of piece. Mind posting a link that can refute the information on this site? Or perhaps you can post some links on the obviously equivalant amount of extremist elements within the buddist, christian, morman, satanist, etc communities.:laugh4:
Devastatin Dave
08-19-2008, 07:26
Err.....what? I'm pretty sure the numbers of volunteers swelled with the War in Iraq.
And I've noticed far less attacks occuring within the US since Iraq. Whats your point?
And I've noticed far less attacks occuring within the US since Iraq. Whats your point?
How does that relate to the discussion? I think it was the fact that airport security measures have been increased a lot after 9/11. What's your point?
Devastatin Dave
08-19-2008, 07:42
How does that relate to the discussion? I think it was the fact that airport security measures have been increased a lot after 9/11. What's your point?
And why do we need tighter security? It certainly isn't the threat of a Hare Chishnas trying to sell me pencils is it?
Back to the topic...
Lets face it, write something critical about Islam, whether it be a cartoon, article, book, or appearantly a post in a gaming forum, people will do everything possible to prove you're right in the assumpstion that Islam is a violent religion and silences those that are critical to its violent roots, which is quite ironic.:2thumbsup:
Nothing to lose your head over, or more specifically, mine.:yes:
Adrian II
08-19-2008, 07:44
Good grief, this whole thread is a load of irrelevant crap.
So far we have two posts on topic, both saying 'Oh well, if we are willing to pay enough for that book, I'll bet someone is willing to die for it'.
Is that even a serious answer?
Good grief, this whole thread is a load of irrelevant crap.
So far we have two posts on topic, both saying 'Oh well, if we are willing to pay enough for that book, I'll bet someone is willing to die for it'.
Is that even a serious answer?
What would you like us to say? I don't agree with censorship because Muslims don't like it, but I also don't agree with stupid biased criticism of religions.
Devastatin Dave
08-19-2008, 07:56
I'll buy the book.:laugh4:
We have to look at another angle on this. The possibility that the author is just trying to get more money. You have to admit, this is great publicity.
Publisher: "Well, your book isn't really well written or even factually accurats..."
Author: "Hmmm, I know, "DEATH THREATS" and I'll go around saying I'm afraid for my life"
Publisher: "Now you're thinking!!!"
Adrian II
08-19-2008, 07:58
What would you like us to say?We've had endless discussions about European reactions to threats against European writers, artists and cartoonists. So far I haven't seen a single American reaction that seriously considers islamist censorship (and induced self-censorship) in the United States.
Is it not a problem? Is it 'old news'. :rolleyes:
If it is a problem, then how would or should Americans tackle it?
I'll buy the book.:laugh4:
We have to look at another angle on this. The possibility that the author is just trying to get more money. You have to admit, this is great publicity.
Publisher: "Well, your book isn't really well written or even factually accurats..."
Author: "Hmmm, I know, "DEATH THREATS" and I'll go around saying I'm afraid for my life"
Publisher: "Now you're thinking!!!"
Dave, I believe this is the first time I actually agree with you.
"Sir, you do know that Muslims will most likely be offended by your illogical statements of how Islam is a terrorist religion, right?"
"Yeah, but I can make headlines!"
We've had endless discussions about European reactions to threats against European writers, artists and cartoonists. So far I haven't seen a single American reaction that seriously considers islamist censorship (and induced self-censorship) in the United States.
Is it not a problem? :rolleyes:
If it is, then how would or should Americans tackle this problem?
As an American, and Swede, I have, again, mixed views. I believe censorship is only necessary if the book in question is simply written to attack Islam on illogical basis and insult Muslims. However, if it is written from a neutral, historic, perspective, say, about Mohammed's campaigns to spread Islam, I do not believe it should be censored.
I mean, can't we all just get along :hippie:?
Devastatin Dave
08-19-2008, 08:04
As an American, and Swede, I have, again, mixed views. I believe censorship is only necessary if the book in question is simply written to attack Islam on illogical basis and insult Muslims. However, if it is written from a neutral, historic, perspective, say, about Mohammed's campaigns to spread Islam, I do not believe it should be censored.
I mean, can't we all just get along :hippie:?
No we can't!!!:laugh4:
But this is the dangerous road of censorship. Who decides whats offensive and whats neutral?
Adrian II
08-19-2008, 08:05
Dave, I believe this is the first time I actually agree with you.
"Sir, you do know that Muslims will most likely be offended by your illogical statements of how Islam is a terrorist religion, right?"
"Yeah, but I can make headlines!"Yeah, by all means don't take it serious.
https://img244.imageshack.us/img244/3497/ostrich1ej9.jpg (https://imageshack.us)
I believe censorship is only necessary if the book in question is simply written to attack Islam on illogical basis and insult Muslims.Okay, we have the first vote in favour of censorship. Who's next?
No we can't!!!:laugh4:
But this is the dangerous road of censorship. Who decides whats offensive and whats neutral?
Common sense. I think there's a clearly defined line between "Mohammed launched campaigns to spread Islam, causing the deaths of so and so in the Arabian Peninsula" and "Islam only breeds terrorism, and all Muslims do is blow themselves up because, you know, Islam says to do all that"
Okay, we have the first vote in favour of censorship. Who's next?
I hope this was meant in sarcasm.
Adrian II
08-19-2008, 08:10
I hope this was meant in sarcasm.I am quoting you directly. You said: books about islam that aren't 'neutral' should be 'censored'.
I am quoting you directly. You said: books about islam that aren't 'neutral' should be 'censored'.
Close.
attack Islam on illogical basis and insult Muslims
Devastatin Dave
08-19-2008, 08:26
So then, would we apply the same censoship towards books that "attack" political figures for example? Again, who will be the judge? What I deem offenive might not be offensive to you (which I dought, I'm a pretty sick little puppy)?
So then, would we apply the same censoship towards books that "attack" political figures for example? Again, who will be the judge? What I deem offenive might not be offensive to you (which I dought, I'm a pretty sick little puppy)?
Will you support me if I made a book about how whites are superior to blacks?
Tribesman
08-19-2008, 08:59
And I've noticed far less attacks occuring within the US since Iraq. Whats your point?
Errrrr could you give dates for all those attacks in America before Iraq ?:dizzy2:
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
This is the best site I've found to keep tabs on the religion of piece. Mind posting a link that can refute the information on this site? Or perhaps you can post some links on the obviously equivalant amount of extremist elements within the buddist, christian, morman, satanist, etc communities
So you post a site that links to some extremely extremist and terrorist supporting websites of several religeons :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:well done Dave .
I suppose the best refuting that is needed is by quoting an very well established expert whose works those sites frequently use .
"the only justification possible in islam for supporting terrorism is by preaching a misinterpretation of the works of Islam"
Its funny how those sites always leave out that quote when they use his work isn't it .
Makes a bit of a mockery of the mission statement of that website you find so convincing doesn't it :thumbsdown:
Will you support me if I made a book about how whites are superior to blacks?
Only if it is them blacks who listen to music written by POS with their baby mamas on welfare....sorry , I was having a good ol backwoods georgia moment there:oops:
So far we have two posts on topic, both saying 'Oh well, if we are willing to pay enough for that book, I'll bet someone is willing to die for it'.
Sort of on topic .
What are you views on the woman whose revue led to this pulping follow up statements ?
Like that she didn't want the book pulped but she was critical of it being portrayed and sold as a thoroughly researched and historicly accurate rendition of the events .
Anyone ever seen the Kevin Smith movie "Dogma"?
it is interesting to note that the Catholic League attacked the movie and tried to prevent it going into distribution....specially targeting Disney and Miramax, the hate mail received was in the hundreds of thousands of letters and there where even death threats issued against Kevin Smith and the other producers of the movie.
Disney/Miramax bowed out of distributing the movie...eventually another distributor picked it up...
so it seems like Christian censorship has reached America a long time ago also....
like someone said in an earlier post....someone else is gonna pick this book up, cash in on all this "controversy" and it will make twice the money that it would have otherwise...
there are nutballs in all religions....the Muslims only get more press about it.
InsaneApache
08-19-2008, 11:03
The Life of Brian is still banned in Aberystwyth, 30 years later.
Tribesman
08-19-2008, 11:51
The Life of Brian is still banned in Aberystwyth, 30 years later.
Ah but Aberystwyth is the home to the Welsh evangilicals who think that Calvinistic interpretations of total devotion to infallible scripture in every aspect of life and society is just a little bit too liberal for real welsh christians .
Devastatin Dave
08-19-2008, 14:36
Will you support me if I made a book about how whites are superior to blacks?
I wouldn't support you since its not true, but I wouldn't censor you from writing it. That whole 1st Ammendment thingy's a bitch ain't it?:2thumbsup:
Devastatin Dave
08-19-2008, 14:47
Errrrr could you give dates for all those attacks in America before Iraq ?:dizzy2:
.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center_bombing
LittleGrizzly
08-19-2008, 14:51
And I've noticed far less attacks occuring within the US since Iraq. Whats your point?
And lets not forget i started drinking semi skimmed milk the day after 9/11, credit where credit is due...
I didn't realise that you had the wtc bombing back in '93 as well, obviously know i see the light, despite driving muslims to the recruiters in droves and pissing off a load of your allies, iraq and my drinking of semi skimmed milk has kept the place safe!
Hey, leave Dave alone! He still thinks that Iraq was involved in 9/11. Who are you to burst his bubble? Have some kindness for the historically challenged.
BTW, I don't see how any rational being can equate modern Christianity's occasional bit of neck-sack puffery (protesting Dogma, banning Life of Brian in Kentucky) with Islam's violent suppression of any work that questions the faith. Seriously, you cannot look at the murder of Theo van Gogh and the Phelps family and say, "Eh, all the same."
Christianity has no cognate to jihad. Christianity was not set out as a total personal/spiritual/political system (render unto Caesar and all that). They're very different animals.
Tribesman
08-19-2008, 15:04
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center_bombing
Well done Dave , so can you help me here as I ain't too good with them number thingies .
How many attacks would have to happen in the next few years for there to be more attacks after the invasion of Iraq than before ?:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Hey, leave Dave alone! He still thinks that Iraq was involved in 9/11. Who are you to burst his bubble? Have some kindness for the historically challenged.
Aw come on , I was only going to ask him to do some simple sums , I didn't want to tax him with complicated stuff like history
BTW, I don't see how any rational being can equate modern Christianity's occasional bit of neck-sack puffery (protesting Dogma, banning Life of Brian in Kentucky) with Islam's violent suppression of any work that questions the faith. Seriously, you cannot look at the murder of Theo van Gogh and the Phelps family and say, "Eh, all the same."
No...protesting Dogma isn´t akin to killing someone (still threats were made) but I CAN look at incidents like bombing abortion clinics and killing doctors that work there and equate the 2...yes....
I will accept that there is a higher degree of violence (specially as of late) from Islamic rather than Christian nut balls...but is the decisive factor here that ones are Christian and other Islamic??
Or is the real factor at work here the fact that when you have regions of the globe that are constantly affected by wars, bombings, errr..."democracy installations" :juggle2: the people from those areas of the world are more likely to fall back into extreme religious positions as a form of lashing out?
I wouldn´t trust the average Islamic fundamentalist living in Baghdad any more that I would trust some white fundamentalist Christian living in mudhole, Arkansas on a purely principled basis....
now you may say that the guy from Arkansas probably wouldn´t try to kill me and the one from Baghdad would....but then again the guy from Arkansas didn´t have his home and way of life destroyed about 10 times in the last 5 years now did he?
People on the other topic were discussing how we can get rid of terrorism.....if you want to get rid of terrorism (specially religious based) you get rid of their recruitment target....if you have people living in abject poverty, with really nothing to live for or look forward to then they are easy picking for brainwashing, be it Islamic or otherwise.......if you can improve the standards of living you would see this kind of this reduce itself.....do you think it´s a coincidence that religion is on the downfall on developed occidental countries? people that have reasonable comfortable lives and access to education don´t fall for this mumbo-jumbo......and let´s face it...if you can convince some guy to kill himself so that he would get 71 virgins in the afterlife I´ll pretty much bet he wasn´t getting any on this life....because he was repressed......if he had actually seen a woman naked in real life he might recognize how silly the idea is.
PanzerJaeger
08-19-2008, 16:09
No...protesting Dogma isn´t akin to killing someone (still threats were made) but I CAN look at incidents like bombing abortion clinics and killing doctors that work there and equate the 2...yes....
Ahh, the archetypal moral equivolent every time someone mentions rampant islamic violence.
In the U.S., violence directed toward abortion providers has killed 7 people, including 3 doctors, 2 clinic employees, a security guard, and a clinic escort.
-wiki
Ahh, the archetypal moral equivolent every time someone mentions rampant islamic violence.
-wiki
I don't think you've answered my question. Do you think Jesus is nothing more than a man?
Ahh, the archetypal moral equivolent every time someone mentions rampant islamic violence.
The difference in volume of violence is easily explainable if you had read the rest of my post..
this talk that some religions are religions of peace and some are religions of the sword is bull.......move your average christian bible thumper to Afghanistan and we´ll see how violent his children turn out...
HoreTore
08-19-2008, 16:19
BTW, I don't see how any rational being can equate modern Christianity's occasional bit of neck-sack puffery (protesting Dogma, banning Life of Brian in Kentucky) with Islam's violent suppression of any work that questions the faith. Seriously, you cannot look at the murder of Theo van Gogh and the Phelps family and say, "Eh, all the same."
How about the christian terrorist/paramilitary/guerilla/whateveryoumaycallthem groups who kill in the name of their lord and fights to establish countries based on the ten commandments, then?
I don't see that as a problem with the religion in question, I see it as a problem with idiots. And we have a lot of idiots in this world. Of every religion, and without religion.
How about the christian terrorist/paramilitary/guerilla/whateveryoumaycallthem groups who kill in the name of their lord and fights to establish countries based on the ten commandments, then?
I don't see that as a problem with the religion in question, I see it as a problem with idiots. And we have a lot of idiots in this world. Of every religion, and without religion.
First time I've agreed with a Norwegian :smash:
DemonArchangel
08-19-2008, 16:22
How about the christian terrorist/paramilitary/guerilla/whateveryoumaycallthem groups who kill in the name of their lord and fights to establish countries based on the ten commandments, then?
I don't see that as a problem with the religion in question, I see it as a problem with idiots. And we have a lot of idiots in this world. Of every religion, and without religion.
Word.
Who'd have thunk. A major American publishing house pulls a novel about Mohammed (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121797979078815073.html?mod=googlenews_wsj) for fear of reprisals. Maybe some other publisher will touch it, but it is a sign of the times.
The series of events that torpedoed this novel are a window into how quickly fear stunts intelligent discourse about the Muslim world.How depressingly familiar.
Oh, got to love capitalism. If the publishing house want to censor itself, let it. If the state was to censor it, by all means, screw the state.
I don't see that as a problem with the religion in question, I see it as a problem with idiots. And we have a lot of idiots in this world. Of every religion, and without religion.
At the heart of the issue. :yes: I'd like to note the importance of interpretation, also.
yesdachi
08-19-2008, 16:31
Censorship is bad.
Rating systems are an acceptable method to identify the content of a product. Keeping kids safe an all.
If you want to make something, anything*, go ahead and if you want to try and sell it, let the laws of capitalism apply.
IMO any company that is selling a product should have the right to refuse to sell, produce, support etc. a product they do not agree with or believe in.
I remember an artist exhibit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ)where Christ was shown in a certain light. The freedom to make his art also awarded me the right to tell him that I thought he was just trying to get attention by doing something controversial. The religious groups made it known that they didn’t like the exhibit (I remember an editorial in the newspaper and a few signs) but I didn’t hear of one decapitation or suicide bombing.
Conservative, West Michigan has got to be one of the most Christian of areas and seeing their greatest religious icon dipped in an atheists piss didn’t make them launch a crusade is testament of the polar differences between the religions. Can you imagine the reaction if it were a representation of Mohammad in that jar?
Censorship is bad. If you don’t like something, don’t look at it, don’t buy it, don’t support it and if you are compelled, encourage others to not look at, buy or support it but don’t stop people from doing something least someone stop you from doing something.
*Within the confines of the law, i.e. slander.
PanzerJaeger
08-19-2008, 16:40
I don't think you've answered my question. Do you think Jesus is nothing more than a man?
What do my personal beliefs have to do with anything?
I believe that the story of Jesus - even if one ignores the miracles and claims of divinity - and the teachings ascribed to the man make him a far more compelling savior figure than Muhammad, and a far better role model for the religiously minded among us.
Where Muhammad was everything typical in your run of the mill thug claiming devine knowledge and translating that into power and wealth using any means necessary, Jesus was quite unique in that he did not heed calls to lead a rebellion in palestine and shunned traditional means of power.
Strike For The South
08-19-2008, 16:46
Censorship is for the ignorant and simpleminded
the man seems little more than your average ruthless warlord with the typical self-constructed aura most came with
Well, glad we cleared that up. You could say Jesus, in the same perspective you put Mohammed in in the above quote, was nothing more than a man with a self constructed aura that his followers helped spread.
What do my personal beliefs have to do with anything?
I believe that the story of Jesus - even if one ignores the miracles and claims of divinity - and the teachings ascribed to the man make him a far more compelling savior figure than Muhammad, and a far better role model for the religiously minded among us.
Where Muhammad was everything typical in your run of the mill thug claiming devine knowledge and translating that into power and wealth using any means necessary, Jesus was quite unique in that he did not heed calls to lead a rebellion in palestine and shunned traditional means of power.
I'm guessing you're in the same group as the people who call Mohammed a pedophilic pirate?
LittleGrizzly
08-19-2008, 16:56
sure mohammed was a paedophile and jesus was a delusional or he had a giant ego... and quite possibly a bit of a drinking problem...
PanzerJaeger
08-19-2008, 17:07
Well, glad we cleared that up. You could say Jesus, in the same perspective you put Mohammed in in the above quote, was nothing more than a man with a self constructed aura that his followers helped spread.
I'm guessing you're in the same group as the people who call Mohammed a pedophilic pirate?
I'm not, nor have I at any time in this thread, argued from a Christian viewpoint, or even mentioned Jesus until you pressed the question, so I'm not sure what point you are trying to make.
My point is that a historical analysis of Muhammad is not at all flattering to a man who found the supposedly "Religion of Peace". There need not be any embellishment to the historical record to show the man for what he was - your typical thug with a following.
I mean, man, can you even blame the Muslims for fighting in the early years? Mohammed was labeled a possessed lunatic, his followers literally had their backs to the wall in face of a persecuting society.
LittleGrizzly
08-19-2008, 17:09
I honestly don't see how people can put thier own religion above others, sure your jesus figure was a pretty cool guy, your old testament god is a far worse kind of evil than mohammed ever was, or do we conveniently leave out the parts of our own religion we don't like ?
If i am to take both religions at face value and believe what the write about themselves, then christianity is a far more violent religion from what i know, i know of no mentions of Allah wiping out life in the entire world bar for 1 family and a few selected animals, this god you talk of sounds like a vicious animal with no thought for life, give me the merciful allah anyday than that crazy physco...
Tribesman
08-19-2008, 17:10
Off the original topic , but relating to the direction part of the topic has taken
Some of these posts are making me confused .
Lets see if I can get this clear .
If a group that calls itself christian crucified and beheads poeple for being of the wrong "faith" it is because they is nuts .
If a Christian group says its members are jusified in the violent overthrow of the British government if Britains laws don't meet their christian values it is because they are nuts .
If a christian preacher says children should be trained to lay down their lives in the name of their faith like they do in Pakistan and Palestine it is because she is nuts .
If a christian group supports terrorism , shelters terrorists , preaches terrorism and commits terrorism it is because they are nuts .
If Muslims do any of that it is because they are Muslims .
Yep that seems to make sense:yes:
PanzerJaeger
08-19-2008, 17:11
sure mohammed was a paedophile and jesus was a delusional or he had a giant ego... and quite possibly a bit of a drinking problem...
I honestly don't see how people can put thier own religion above others, sure your jesus figure was a pretty cool guy, your old testament god is a far worse kind of evil than mohammed ever was, or do we conveniently leave out the parts of our own religion we don't like ?
If i am to take both religions at face value and believe what the write about themselves, then christianity is a far more violent religion from what i know, i know of no mentions of Allah wiping out life in the entire world bar for 1 family and a few selected animals, this god you talk of sounds like a vicious animal with no thought for life, give me the merciful allah anyday than that crazy physco...
You are essentially arguing with nobody. Swedishfish set up the "Well Jesus wasn't any better.." straw man in response to my and other's criticism of Mohammad.
If i am to take both religions at face value and believe what the write about themselves, then christianity is a far more violent religion from what i know, i know of no mentions of Allah wiping out life in the entire world bar for 1 family and a few selected animals, this god you talk of sounds like a vicious animal with no thought for life, give me the merciful allah anyday than that crazy physco...
Well, unfortunately it's not as simple as that. God caused the flood because the human race had become to sinful in his eyes (of course sinning isn't seen a such to sinners :2thumbsup:). Though I see your point, all religions have violence or a history of such. We're human, I'm pretty sure it's common :sweatdrop:
You are essentially arguing with nobody. Swedishfish set up the "Well Jesus wasn't any better.." straw man in response to my and other's criticism of Mohammad.
Your critism of Mohammed can be applied to Jesus as well, so why exclusively focus on Mohammed and disregard the other religon's?
PanzerJaeger
08-19-2008, 17:21
Your critism of Mohammed can be applied to Jesus as well, so why exclusively focus on Mohammed and disregard the other religon's?
You are free to write whatever you wish about Jesus in a thread that deals with the censoring of a book about Mohammad, just as I am free to point out that everytime anything that can even remotely be construed as critical towards islam is mentioned, the usual crowd crawls out of the woodwork with the same tired "teh Christians are just as bad!!1" line... :coffeenews:
LittleGrizzly
08-19-2008, 17:24
You are essentially arguing with nobody. Swedishfish set up the "Well Jesus wasn't any better.." straw man in response to my and other's criticism of Mohammad.
Im essentially pointing out to the christians here that as much as mohammed can be mocked, so can jesus and the christian god, not so much with you (PJ) but i often get the feeling with the christians here mocking islam that they feel somehow superior, both religions have thier good sides and thier dirty little bit they rather no-one saw, besides when talking about the world #2 religion what better to compare it to than the worlds #1 religion....
I am of the view that neither religion has any kind of superiority over the other, there is a big difference in views of followers of both religions at the moment but ronin has covered the reasons for that mostly
God caused the flood because the human race had become to sinful in his eyes
I do know the story, but as i wrote it i was thinking what of all the newborn baby's and animals, even if i was a christian i would probably view the story more as a threat to keep us on the straight and narrow rather than an historical event, but if we are to assume it is as its written then god was happy to kill of plenty of innocent children (and from what i remember animals are classed as innocents in christianity ?)
just as I am free to point out that everytime anything that can even remotely be construed as critical towards islam is mentioned, the usual crowd crawls out of the woodwork with the same tired "teh Christians are just as bad!!1" line...
Being the two major religions we are bound to compare them, i also think they are probably the two religions people now most about on this board, besides i think the christians are just as bad line is a reaction to the constant islam is bad line we have to put up with, between you frag and one or two others its like a constant anti-islamic drone..
You are free to write whatever you wish about Jesus in a thread that deals with the censoring of a book about Mohammad, just as I am free to point out that everytime anything that can even remotely be construed as critical towards islam is mentioned, the usual crowd crawls out of the woodwork with the same tired "teh Christians are just as bad!!1" line... :coffeenews:
So basically I'm talking to a brick wall? Well, I didn't expect much, seeing your posts.
Adrian II
08-19-2008, 17:29
Okay, so far we have three answers:
1. It's okay to ban/censor offensive books
2. Islam as a whole is the problem
3. Christians are a problem, too
Could someone please try and answer the impossible question with which I've struggled in vain since the murder of Theo van Gogh. Being: what can we do about this threat? (apart from self-censorship as under 1.)
Okay, so far we have three answers:
1. It's okay to ban/censor offensive books
2. Islam as a whole is the problem
3. Christians are a problem, too
Could someone please try and answer the impossible question with which I've struggled in vain since the murder of Theo van Gogh. Being: what can we do about this threat? (apart from self-censorship as under 1.)
To end the threat of Islamic extremism is to take away their reason to rise up and murder. That is through 1. destroying the organizations they feel protected under (the terrorist ones) 2. Show that the terrorists are in the wrong, basically a counter-propoganda campaign and 3. show them that we can help their situation, be it poor or opressed.
Could someone please try and answer the impossible question with which I've struggled in vain since the murder of Theo van Gogh. Being: what can we do about this threat? (apart from self-censorship as under 1.)
read my reply...I have some ideas about what can be done.
Hosakawa Tito
08-19-2008, 17:49
The State should not censor or ban publishing of the material in question. Deal with the violence or threat of violence as the law allows. Does your country have hate crime legislation (http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_hat3.htm) on the books? If the perpetrators are not legalized citizens, after they serve their sentences I'd deport them.
The State should not censor or ban publishing of the material in question. Deal with the violence or threat of violence as the law allows. Does your country have hate crime legislation (http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_hat3.htm) on the books? If the perpetrators are not legalized citizens, after they serve their sentences I'd deport them.
Slightly off-topic, but I think 'hate crimes' are moronic. Murder is already a crime- why does it become a second crime if someone commits murder because of a persons race instead of him just not liking them and deciding to kill them?
ICantSpellDawg
08-19-2008, 18:20
"Hate crimes" are moronic. How one murder could be a hate-crime and another, what? A love crime? A dislike crime?
When a white guy kills a black guy it is called a hate crime. When a black guy kills a white guy it is called par-for-the-course - the demographic trend. Think of all the ink we would waste writing "hate-crime" as opposed to just "crime" in those instances.
HoreTore
08-19-2008, 18:21
Slightly off-topic, but I think 'hate crimes' are moronic. Murder is already a crime- why does it become a second crime if someone commits murder because of a persons race instead of him just not liking them and deciding to kill them?
You also have a problem with premeditated murder being treated harder than manslaughter? I mean... They're both murders, right?
ICantSpellDawg
08-19-2008, 18:22
You also have a problem with premeditated murder being treated harder than manslaughter? I mean... They're both murders, right?
If I kill a man because I hate him - what does it matter why I hate him? Or if I am just filled with hate?
Lets say I kill a man because he is selling onions and I hate both onions and the purveyors of them (which, I believe has been well established on this board). Why is this important? I killed a guy with intent because of hate - the end.
HoreTore
08-19-2008, 18:24
If I kill a man because I hate him - what does it matter why I hate him?
So... We should close down Gitmo then? After all, they're just normal killers, right? Why should they get a different treatment than any other killer?
ICantSpellDawg
08-19-2008, 18:26
So... We should close down Gitmo then? After all, they're just normal killers, right? Why should they get a different treatment than any other killer?
Because they are not U.S. citizens and the international nature demands a difference in treatment - not all of the men are being held for murder.. Our domestic terrorists with citizenship are kept in our domestic system. Non-sequitor.
HoreTore
08-19-2008, 18:30
Because they are not U.S. citizens and the international nature demands a difference in treatment - not all of the men are being held for murder.. Our domestic terrorists with citizenship are kept in our domestic system. Non-sequitor.
Yes, but they receive a harder penalty than a "normal" killer. Why? Because in addition to killing one man, they spread fear(or terror, if you like) among many others. And that's also a crime. Fortunately.
Slightly off-topic, but I think 'hate crimes' are moronic. Murder is already a crime- why does it become a second crime if someone commits murder because of a persons race instead of him just not liking them and deciding to kill them?
It could be treated as a mere label.
Louis VI the Fat
08-19-2008, 18:35
This saga upsets me as a Muslim -- and as a writer who believes that fiction can bring Islamic history to life in a uniquely captivating and humanizing wayIndeed. :2thumbsup:
This is a tragedy.
The Islamic world has spawned many literary, artistic and scientific flowerings. Some of which have been of crucial importance to the West and Christianity. Others have had equally important impacts on the non-Islamic world further East. It is neither inconceivable nor arrogant to think that the West, and non-Islamic Eastern cultures can have a similar impact on the Islamic world.
Many Islamic countries are stifled at the moment by cultural stupefication. There is no shame or arrogance in that statement. So the flow of ideas ought to be encouraged, not dissuaded. The voices of exiled Muslims, of unheard poets, of interested outsiders - all should be encouraged by the West. Not silenced. Certainly not silenced, as they are now, out of, one, intimidation. And often even worse, perceived intimidation. Or, two, perhaps well-intended, but counterproductive 'sensitivity'.
This saga strikes me as a peculiar mix of the two. The book was pulled pre-emptively. Before any Muslim had ever made any threats about it. It was pulled after Americans started a fuzz about it. I can't look into their hearts, but I think the latter concern, 'sensitivity', led to the former, 'intimidation'.
My guess is that an over-zealous outsider, miss Spellberg - I shall assume by her surname that she is, shall we say, not Islamic - who teaches Islamic history at the University of Texas at Austin, identifies herself too much with Islam, and used the prospect of possible threats as a public justification for her own uneasyness about the book. It won't be the first time that an outsider is more sensitive than the subjects of her identifiction about insults, misunderstandings or their good name and honour.
There's the Daily Mail / extreme right / militant opinion about Islam: a dangerous sect, violent and bend on world domination. (Not that this is entirely untrue, mind..) And there's the multicultural / dhimmi / leftist opinion about Islam: children, victims, opressed, incapable and innocent. (Not that they're always wrong about the last four..) I've lately taken more offense at the latter than at the former. It's as harmful as the first, but combined with self-rightousness and stuck in a web of lies, taboos and censorship. I started above with the blessing that an unequivocal support of the free flow ideas could have on the Islamic world. Debate and dialogue with and about Islam, free from both hate and taboo, would perhaps be an even bigger benefit to the West itself.
This saga has been one of Westerners empowering Islamic fundamentalists. They no longer keep just a lid on cultural exchange in the Islamic World, but also on the West. Their work done by dhimmis who put greater value on fundamentalist sensitivity than on liberal exchange of ideas. Meanwhile, Christian fundamentalists are looking on in jealousy, hope and wonder. Asking themselves what they've done wrong.
Liberal Islam, liberal West, and the exchange between the two are the losers. Fundamentalist Muslims, fundamentalist Christians and others, and their unholy alliance in the West, are the winners.
"I'm devastated," Ms. Jones told me after the book got spiked, adding, "I wanted to honor Aisha and all the wives of Muhammad by giving voice to them, remarkable women whose crucial roles in the shaping of Islam have so often been ignored -- silenced -- by historians."What has become of us. :shame:
@Adrian: some of my thoughts for you, my dear! Even when I still fall short on the 'organised' bit. ~;)
Adrian II
08-19-2008, 18:36
read my reply...I have some ideas about what can be done.Your main idea is to 'improve living conditions' in Islamic countries.
But my dear fellow, the murderer of Van Gogh lived in Amsterdam all his life. And a potential killer of the American author may have lived in the U.S. all his life. Quite a few islamist terrorists come from middle class or even wealthy backgrounds, like Mr Osama. The recruiting grounds are all over the world, in affluent countries as well as poor ones, and among all layers and classes of society.
If anything, the example of Northern Ireland proves that your analysis of the root causes of religious terrorism is totally amiss. It has long made the transition from an industrial to a service economy, and of the four Home Nations, only England exceeds Northern ireland in GDP per capita. The Troubles actually had a bad effect on the economy instead of the other way round.
You may now make the traditional argument about Northern Ireland, which says that the Troubles were a reflection of class struglle or social injustice, clothed as religious conflict. That may be nearer to the truth, not just in the case of Northern Ireland, but in the case of Islamic countries, too. However this (perceived as well as real) social injustice may be alleviated, it will have to be the work of its citizens and not the outside world, and it will take a very long time.
Meanwhile, it is no answer to my question. And I don't know the answer either; I'm not playing a guessing game here. Hosakawa Tito's proposal is probably the main part of any solution: enforce the law. But it will not stop, let alone convince those who consider that law heretic.
PanzerJaeger
08-19-2008, 18:43
Being the two major religions we are bound to compare them, i also think they are probably the two religions people now most about on this board, besides i think the christians are just as bad line is a reaction to the constant islam is bad line we have to put up with, between you frag and one or two others its like a constant anti-islamic drone..
Thats the thing. I know that I have never prefaced my arguments with "Christianity is better because.." and I don't think Frag or anyone else has either. Taking that further, I cannot speak for any one else's motives, but none of my opinions on islam (or anything else for that matter) have anything to do with Christianity. The moral equivalence made with Christianity really goes no where, as it assumes that those critical of islam can only be devout Christians, which is, for me at least, completely wrong; and/or Christians can only be critical of Islam based on a sense of superiority, which is also not correct. Its a lame straw man and, as can be seen in this thread, derails discussion - with everyone feeling the need to weigh in on Christianity instead of the topic at hand.
So basically I'm talking to a brick wall? Well, I didn't expect much, seeing your posts.
I suggest that muslims may have an issue reconciling Mohammad's actions with his teachings and you impulsively respond with "Jesus was sorta kinda just as bad and Christians are too!!!!". What do you want me to do with that? :shrug:
Strike For The South
08-19-2008, 18:49
Okay, so far we have three answers:
1. It's okay to ban/censor offensive books
2. Islam as a whole is the problem
3. Christians are a problem, too
Could someone please try and answer the impossible question with which I've struggled in vain since the murder of Theo van Gogh. Being: what can we do about this threat? (apart from self-censorship as under 1.)
We ride out the storm. We continue to publish what we think and feel no matter what the cost. Id rather be murdered for expressing my ideals than be intimidated by the simpletons who want to censor me. History is filled with examples.
Louis VI the Fat
08-19-2008, 19:05
There must be a virtual kittencide in heaven. ~:mecry:
For the non-Texicanos: I agree with Strike.
yesdachi
08-19-2008, 19:06
Okay, so far we have three answers:
1. It's okay to ban/censor offensive books
2. Islam as a whole is the problem
3. Christians are a problem, too
Could someone please try and answer the impossible question with which I've struggled in vain since the murder of Theo van Gogh. Being: what can we do about this threat? (apart from self-censorship as under 1.)
Well, we could all convert to Islam, then censorship is no longer an issue and we could jihad against the vial Christians and their despicable ways, flooding the earth and all.
Being the two major religions we are bound to compare them, i also think they are probably the two religions people now most about on this board, besides i think the christians are just as bad line is a reaction to the constant islam is bad line we have to put up with, between you frag and one or two others its like a constant anti-islamic drone..
Hey now! When have I ever given off that kind of vibe? :inquisitive:
~D
Leet Eriksson
08-19-2008, 19:30
There are many anti-islamic material on book shelves and on websites, i really don't see why all this drama popped up.
Its basically the same old "HURF DURF THEY ARE TRYING TO CENSOR OUR FREEDOMS OF SPEECH" shtick they have been pulling since van gogh was slain. Take it from a muslim like me, i wouldn't give two ounces if you insulted muhammed right infront of me, like every civilised muslim out there (the majority). Its pretty hilarious how sensationalist the western media is about it though, i'll give you extra points for getting easily trolled for things that won't change a damn thing wether it was published or not.
I'm still waiting for some media vendor to call upcoming protests "riots" if they ever happen, that'll just up the hilarity of it all.
Enforce the law, arrest anyone making or attempting to follow through on direct threats. What more exactly are we supposed to do, force the publisher to publish the book?
This is not government banning all publication of the book, it is the publisher refusing to publish it, which as a private company is their right. This isn't censorship, it's capitalism; if there's a market for the book, and the publisher doesn't have the guts to publish it, someone will.
LeftEyeNine
08-19-2008, 20:02
The killer of Van Gogh's father sure had migrated from a poor Islamic country, A2.
Islam's main problem derives from the sheikhs, mullahs, imams and other influent religious figures who directed the flow of Islam's life after the main holy figures passed out (which includes Mohammed, Hz. Ebu Bekir, Hz. Ömer, Hz. Osman and Hz. Ali respectively). The so-called Hadiths, optimistically half of which were fictive and personal ideas brought by the influent figures or those that were so badly interpreted transfusions of the holy figures' sayings, created a very dogmatic and socially stiffening environment for the Islamic population. The influential figures were respected much, and one would not dare saying a word against what would be brought up as "the word of Mohammed".
Basically, those influential figures of whom we know no insight to how healthy they are, drove the religion to a very either-black-or-white road. We don't know whether those imams, mullahs or whatever they are were impotent, schizophrenic, in need of anger management, granite-level stubborns or misogynists. Eventually what Islamist population recognizes as what "Islam says" was built up around a bunch of Islamic influential yet idiot figures.
And as the history tells us the agressive exploitation of Africa and Middle East due to their gigantic economical potentials left the native folk "without a life". Look, it's year 2008 and the same game still revolves such that we have American members that can think "there are less attacks on US after the war in Iraq". Priceless.
I'm a Muslim yet a true secularist, which is kinda hard to preserve and draw the lines when you are living in Turkey. I've been discussing with 18-year-olds who defend a huge Islamic society named "Nurcular" like a jihadmonger while he speaks about him browsing the forums with a glass of whisky. And those societies have so many of those youngsters.
Islam is infected with either top-class-material-5-cm-thickheads or those that pray to Allah while gazing at a brothel. Believe me, those extremists are a bigger threat to us than what they have been to the West.
Solution? Don't be a pawn of the "fear society" and let the time settle Islamic population's integration into the Western norms. Exchange the sides, let West be Islamic and the immigrants be the Christians, the conflict would still be impossible to avoid. Islam will cleanse itself as soon as Islamist intellectuals feel bold to speak their minds. And this has to be encouraged.
The world will always have idiots. We need ones with bona fides for the idiots to listen and follow.
I find it amusing to dwell on Jesus vs. Mohammed topic, however I wonder how many Christians could be a Christian today if it wasn't for Constantine I declaring the religion legal hence removing all brutal barriers that could prevent its spread.
Also I wonder why medieval conditions are abandoned from taking into consideration where "spread" is the word behind it. I wonder why you'd call your country democratic, social and adherent to human rights while it was founded after wars. You got no right to call your country where peace is existent there then, eh ?
Naive attacks of hatred disguised behind peace fandom won't ease the process of Muslims joining your "peace". You are already in the ********, you need to get along with it.
So... We should close down Gitmo then? After all, they're just normal killers, right? Why should they get a different treatment than any other killer?Different degrees of murder are to speak to culpability. First degree murder is typically reserved for deliberate, planned murder. Compare that to third degree murder or manslaughter where it is often gross negligence resulting in death instead of willful, premeditated murder. The reasons for such distinctions should be obvious.
If a crazed white supremacist plans and carries out the murder of a black person, he would be guilty of first degree murder. His motive may be racist, but that's the motive, not the crime itself. Being a racist isn't a crime- murder is. It's incoherent to then say that having a racist motivation to a crime elevates it to a different level of criminality.
Hosakawa Tito
08-19-2008, 23:01
Slightly off-topic, but I think 'hate crimes' are moronic. Murder is already a crime- why does it become a second crime if someone commits murder because of a persons race instead of him just not liking them and deciding to kill them?
It's not a second crime it's a degree or classification of a type of murder. Being a racist isn't a crime. Spouting hatred isn't a crime. However, acting upon such feelings and verbal threats by committing murder is a crime. Maybe for some there is no cognizant difference, but for many there is. Especially those groups who have long suffered being murdered for the color of their skin or their religious beliefs or their sexual orientation or their gender etc... Some States have decided to enact laws within their Penal Code to deal with this particular anti-social deviant behavior.
Hosakawa Tito's proposal is probably the main part of any solution: enforce the law. But it will not stop, let alone convince those who consider that law heretic.
Sadly there probably is no law that will stop these murders. One can only deal with these social misfits as best one can.
Louis VI the Fat
08-20-2008, 14:01
Salman Rushdie strongly criticized his publisher for pulling a historical novel about the prophet Muhammad and his child bride over concerns about angering Muslims.Yet more Muslims (http://edition.cnn.com/2008/SHOWBIZ/books/08/14/rushdie.cancelled.ap/index.html?referer=sphere_related_content&referer=sphere_related_content) speak out against the publisher!
For all the tragedy of it, this saga is great fun too. Americans trying to suppress American books by using scare tactics, and Muslims urging Americans to hold freedom of press in higher esteem. ~;)
Shame on the multicultural fundamentalists and their lies, obfuscation and censorship. Shame on their trying to make common cause with Islamic fundamentalists. Shame on them being their dhimmis. Shame on their portrayal of Muslims as unstable children, incapable of rational thought, easily stirred into an agressive frenzy. And shame on their slandering the good name of Muslims.
Adrian II
08-20-2008, 14:41
Shame on the multicultural fundamentalists and their lies, obfuscation and censorship. Shame on their trying to make common cause with Islamic fundamentalists. Shame on them being their dhimmis. Shame on their portrayal of Muslims as unstable children, incapable of rational thought, easily stirred into an agressive frenzy. And shame on their slandering the good name of Muslims.Yes, shame on them. But your implicit point still doesn't hold. Don't think I haven't noticed your usual slant that Islamists aren't really so bad, and multiculturalists are the real enemy.
Not multiculturalists, but Islamist militants are the main (or real) threat to dissident or critical authors. Their nemeses have been mainly Islamists: Salman Rushdie (Iranian regime), Taslima Nasrin (Bangladeshi Islamists), Nas Abu Said (Egyptian Brotherhood), Van Gogh (Dutch islamist), Danish cartoonists (assorted Islamist idiots), &cetera.
I suppose some American multiculturalists are afraid that similar persecution and murder will reach American shores, and that some of their esteemed and totally peaceful Muslim friends will be ostracized in the ensuing fracas. Their view may be misguided, but your assumption that they are behind this decision or that they act out of a patronizing attitude is so far unproven. Try proving your point for a change. Give us some close reading of some of their main exponents. Shall I lead the way?
The vilified Ms Spellberg, for instance, seems to think the book is pornographic because it contains sexual scenes. 'I don't have a problem with historical fiction,' she says: 'I do have a problem with the deliberate misinterpretation of history. You can't play with a sacred history and turn it into soft core pornography.'
Then again, she gives the impression that she is actually afraid of reprisals herself: '[Her] the email spread like wildfire through Random House, which also received a letter from Ms. Spellberg and her attorney, saying she would sue the publisher if her name was associated with the novel.'
Interesting, no?
But there is more. After she read the book, instead of contacting the publishers and warning them of an impending pr disaster, Ms Spellberg first contacted Mr Amanullah, the editor of a widely read Muslim website, and warned him of the impending publication.
This would point in the other direction, namely that Ms Spellberg is an obedient dhimmi.
But wait, there is still more. In a WSJ article Ms Spellberg, who is an acknodledged expert on 'Aisha', writes the following: 'As an expert on Aisha's life, I felt it was my professional responsibility to counter this novel's fallacious representation of a very real woman's life.'
This would point to professional jealousy as her main motif.
It's hard to tell, isn't it? And since we know of no other outside expert involved in the publisher's decision, be it a multiculturalist or not, we can't reasonably say that the book was pulled because of multiculturalist thinking.
I admit, it takes a little effort to gauge what exactly is going on. But it is worthwhile in order to counter the many ready-made opinions ventured on subjects like this.
My best guess is still that the book was pulled out of fear, my friend. Sheer, unadulterated fear of being murdered. Don't forget that Rushdie's Japanese translator was killed and two of his European translators, Italian Ettore Capriolo and Norwegian William Nygaard, barely escaped a similar fate.
Louis VI the Fat
08-21-2008, 00:19
But your implicit point still doesn't hold. Don't think I haven't noticed your usual slant that Islamists aren't really so bad, and multiculturalists are the real enemy.As you know, I was aware of this story before you posted it. Crucial is that I didn't post it under the title 'Islamist Censorship reaches America' - a title that assumes as much as my assumption that 'Dhimmitude reaches America'.
My question is, did you read up on Ms Spellberg before I mentioned her? If you did, why did you leave it up to others to explicitly draw attention to her role in this saga? The origin of the pulling of this book should not be traced to Islamists, but to an American associate Professor in the field of History and Gender.
So don't think I haven't noticed your usual slant that multiculturalists aren't really so bad, and Islamists are the real enemy. ~;)
It may surprise you, but I did look up Ms Spellberg. I gave a 'Ms Spellberg 101' in post #101. It was posted one minute before you posted, so maybe you missed while replying to somebody else. I can't figure out if you read it or not.
When I read the story I tried to retrace the steps that led to pulling the book, and I especially tried to gauge Ms Spellberg's role and motive in it. Her specialties are history and gender, etnicity and nation, women's studies and herstory. Your typical left-wing multiculturalist academician.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The fear belongs to the publisher. The fearmongering belongs to the dhimmi dimwit:
Islamist violence is a clear and present danger. If a publishing house receives information that one of their books may result in violent repercussions, then they have to take that into account. I am not a hero. Outside the sphere of game forum tough talk, there are family members, the prospect of police protection and all the invasion of privacy this brings with it, fear, responsibility to employees, financial considerations. A novel may not be worth it.
So yes, fear for Islamist violence is the direct cause for pulling the novel.
But the million dollar question for me is, did Ms Spellberg sincerely warn for Islamist violence out of a sense of obligation stemming from her position as an expert on Islam? Or did she use and even instigate the prospect of Islamist repercussions? For ulterior motives? These ulterior reasons being perhaps any of the ones you close-read in her statement: pornographic concerns, her own name being associated with the novel, professional jealousy.
Like I said in my previous post, I can not look into her heart. My guess is the latter - she instigated Islamic threats for ulterior motives. Motives, which led her to seek out threats of Islamic violence. It is a thin line indeed between warning for violent consequences and using the possibility of violent consequences.
Here's why I think she did just that:
We have an associate professor who specializes in Islamic studies. She receives an advance copy of historical fiction that novelises the life of Mohammed’s nine year old bride. Instead of contacting the publisher and saying “Listen, I study these folks for a living and publishing this is really gonna tick ‘em off", she contacts the editor of a popular Muslim website. And tells him “Hey, I have an advance copy of a book and it makes fun of Muslims so you should warn everyone.” Nobody on the website has a copy of the book. Their only source of information is the story as presented to them by Ms Spellberg. A presentation that can be summed up as: 'American book insults Muslims with a pornographic account of Mohammed as paedophile!!1!'
And lo and behold, a few anonymous hotheads post some threatening stuff on the teh Muslim backroom. Mission thus accomplished, she now returns to the publisher. And 'warns' them that there may be violent consequences, as she has received 'signals' from Muslims that they might take offence.
My guess to her motivation? Not a deliberate malicious act. Just the usual diversity sensitivity gone awry. Too much respect for Muslim ssensitivity.
But does it even matter what her motive is? No, not really, I think. Be it professional jealousy, dhimmitude, self-identification with Muslims, or what not.
What matters is that it is a stretch to say that Islamic threats were the reason for pulling the book. And that it is not a stretch to say that leftist sensitivity for (perceived) Islamic insensitivity was the reason.
Adrian II
08-21-2008, 08:49
But does it even matter what her motive is? No, not really, I think. Be it professional jealousy, dhimmitude, self-identification with Muslims, or what not.I am glad that you agree with my view that we don't know her motive.
We also agree that self-censorship should be firmly discouraged and never applauded or tacitly supported.
We differ on the isue of finger-pointing.
So you agree that we don't know her motive, yet you conclude that she must be a dhimmi. And because you assume she is a dhimmi, you assume that the entire publishing house must be infested with dhimmi's. That's too easy, mon vieux. All we have is one woman whose motives we don't know.
What bothers me most is your lack of imagination. It is easy for you and me to take sides on this issue because our professional careers and private lives aren't caught up in it.
Imagine yourself in the shoes of a an academic in this field. You have Arab and/or Muslim friends and professional acquaintances. A Rushdie-like row might destroy these friendships and alienate those contacts. Is it worth it? You and I would say that it is, because we value freedom of expression that much. Some academics would say that it isn't, because they value their friendships and contacts too much. So if they side with the censors, it isn't out of sympathy with the censors - it is because they genuinely think that a 'pornographic' novel isn't worth losing friends and contacts over.
Show me a real dhimmi, someone who thinks we should kow-tow to pressure from islamists or protect muslims from critical publications, and I will throw the first rotten egg, long before you have found your target.
What matters is that it is a stretch to say that Islamic threats were the reason for pulling the book.
https://img120.imageshack.us/img120/6544/ostrich1ys2.png (https://imageshack.us)
How dissapointing. So if you are sick with desire/absolutily terrified it doesn't necesarily mean you are english/swedish. Gah for this.
english/swedish.
Ha
Ha
Ha
Ha
:coffeenews:
4 sizes and a non-standard smily, cool. You sure like to make a point out of ignoring me
4 sizes and a non-standard smily, cool. You sure like to make a point out of ignoring me
I'm sure the Swede comment was necessary, correct?
I'm sure the Swede comment was necessary, correct?
At least we agree on England then, getting there one step at the time.
At least we agree on England then, getting there one step at the time.
I think we all can agree on England :2thumbsup:
Abokasee
08-21-2008, 13:30
I have yet to see a book about Jesus being a mass murdering pedophilic pirate. However, I have seen books about how Islam is a corrupt and mass murdering religion, and how Mohammed was nothing more than a pedophile. Funny, isn't it?
I shall make every effort to combine the too:
You are a pirate!:pirate2::7pirate: (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLsJyfN0ICU)
Of course, someone is going to claim that the Pope is in fact a Ninja soon
:7ninja:
Louis VI the Fat
08-21-2008, 18:58
https://img120.imageshack.us/img120/6544/ostrich1ys2.png (https://imageshack.us):coffeenews:
Fine. I've laid blame at the American leftist diversity industry, and stated my case. I might raise my head out of the sand if and when you state your case. I have yet to see you put up some evidence for the Panzer-Adrian thesis that Islamist censorship is responsible for the pulling of this book. Make it, and I might reconsider.
The more exasparated you get in this thread, the bigger the ostriches become. ~;p
Is that the civilised equivalent then of the increasing use of BOLD PRINT and exclamation marks by the unlearned whenever their argumentation alone fails to convince anyone?
Adrian II
08-21-2008, 21:02
I might raise my head out of the sand if and when you state your case.Let me try a historical comparison.
In the period 1945-89, where did the threat of a potential Communist take-over in western democracies come from? Did it come from the Soviet Union, or from the Marxists in our universities and trade unions who sympathized with the USSR? I would say the former. Those Marxists were a minority, and they were mostly impractical eggheads. Without the Soviet Union's existence I suspect that they wouldn't even have been Marxists - the presence of a real big brother of flesh and blood in the East gave them what little intellectual and political leverage they had.
Today Islamism is a similar ideology, though a far less harmful or powerful threat to western democracies. It is not a military or territorial threat, bar in a few nations such as Iran or Sudan, and it is on the way out as a serious political movement if we are to believe your fellow-countryman Gilles Kepel. It has its fellow travellers in the West, often the same (kind of) people who used to favour Marxist critique of western democracy in the old days. They (still) hate western society, and often for the same reasons, only now they appeal to Islamism as the avenging force, instead of to Communism.
Once again, what we have is a genuine threat, this time in the form of Islamist terror, both large (9/11, Iranian mullahs, Taliban) and small (Van Gogh). And we have fellow travellers who ride the wave and identify with the Islamist cause out of an aversion against western democracy.
And once again, these fellow travellers appeal to a group which they consider to be the wretched of the earth to exact their vengeance on the West. I have made this point time and again on the forum: the proletariat of old has been replaced by the muslim minorities in western countries, and the Tiersmondisme (fascination with the ‘nobility’ of life in the Third World) of old has been replaced among today’s fellow travellers by a fascination with Islam and its ‘authentic’ way of life.
What is more, just like the old Communist fellow travellers always wanted to lead the wretched in their quest for justice and act as their ‘vanguard’, our modern fellow travellers are attempting to take the lead in what they perceive as a just Islamist cause against western imperialism and consumerism. And once again they are laughed at by the people they claim to represent or serve, just like the Communist students of old were laughed at when they were picketing and handing out their little flyers at factory gates. For they are still mostly impractical eggheads. Like their Communist predecessors they couldn’t swat a fly, let alone kill a fellow human. They wouldn’t know how.
They are fellow travelling, a term that supposes that one has someone to travel with. That someone is the genuine Islamist. Just like the genuine Communist of old, he would shove the fellow travellers aside or kill them in the blink of an eye when it suited him. He is the real enemy. Ayatollah Khomeini, one time instigator of the fatwa against Rushdie, is a thousand times more responsible for the pulling of Ms Sherry Jones' book than a thousand Ms Spellbergs could ever be.
Devastatin Dave
08-21-2008, 21:45
Let me try a historical comparison.
In the period 1945-89, where did the threat of a potential Communist take-over in western democracies come from? Did it come from the Soviet Union, or from the Marxists in our universities and trade unions who sympathized with the USSR? I would say the former. Those Marxists were a minority, and they were mostly impractical eggheads. Without the Soviet Union's existence I suspect that they wouldn't even have been Marxists - the presence of a real big brother of flesh and blood in the East gave them what little intellectual and political leverage they had.
Today Islamism is a similar ideology, though a far less harmful or powerful threat to western democracies. It is not a military or territorial threat, bar in a few nations such as Iran or Sudan, and it is on the way out as a serious political movement if we are to believe your fellow-countryman Gilles Kepel. It has its fellow travellers in the West, often the same (kind of) people who used to favour Marxist critique of western democracy in the old days. They (still) hate western society, and often for the same reasons, only now they appeal to Islamism as the avenging force, instead of to Communism.
Once again, what we have is a genuine threat, this time in the form of Islamist terror, both large (9/11, Iranian mullahs, Taliban) and small (Van Gogh). And we have fellow travellers who ride the wave and identify with the Islamist cause out of an aversion against western democracy.
And once again, these fellow travellers appeal to a group which they consider to be the wretched of the earth to exact their vengeance on the West. I have made this point time and again on the forum: the proletariat of old has been replaced by the muslim minorities in western countries, and the Tiersmondisme (fascination with the ‘nobility’ of life in the Third World) of old has been replaced among today’s fellow travellers by a fascination with Islam and its ‘authentic’ way of life.
What is more, just like the old Communist fellow travellers always wanted to lead the wretched in their quest for justice and act as their ‘vanguard’, our modern fellow travellers are attempting to take the lead in what they perceive as a just Islamist cause against western imperialism and consumerism. And once again they are laughed at by the people they claim to represent or serve, just like the Communist students of old were laughed at when they were picketing and handing out their little flyers at factory gates. For they are still mostly impractical eggheads. Like their Communist predecessors they couldn’t swat a fly, let alone kill a fellow human. They wouldn’t know how.
They are fellow travelling, a term that supposes that one has someone to travel with. That someone is the genuine Islamist. Just like the genuine Communist of old, he would shove the fellow travellers aside or kill them in the blink of an eye when it suited him. He is the real enemy. Ayatollah Khomeini, one time instigator of the fatwa against Rushdie, is a thousand times more responsible for the pulling of Ms Sherry Jones' book than a thousand Ms Spellbergs could ever be.
Jumping Jesus on a pogo stick...
Adrian, this has to be one of the greatest posts I've ever read. Excellent analysis.:2thumbsup:
Quick edit: I hope by me agreeing with you doesn't discredit your post with fellow Orgahs!!!
Adrian II
08-21-2008, 21:48
Quick edit: I hope by me agreeing with you doesn't discredit your post with fellow Orgahs!!!If it does, they can go to hell paradise. :laugh3:
Louis VI the Fat
08-21-2008, 23:13
Bugger, he delivers. :wall:
Ah well. No more trolling your thread then.
I'll move right on to answering your main question: 'how to deal with Islamist violence, threats and (self)censorship?'
My first answer you've got already. To quote another regular Dutch member of the Backroom: 'Go ahead, you liberal lefties, ally yourselves some more with the most backward, violent and extreme aspects of Islam'. In other words, no more of this. No more taboos and self-defeating lies. No more exasparating 'it doesn't happen, and besides, we do it too'. No more Ms Spellbergs.
You are correct of course with the overarching threat being Islamist violence. The book wouldn't have been pulled if some zealot warned of 'Finnish terrorism!!1!'
Nevertheless, this current saga is one of an over-zealous non-Muslim. She may even mean well. I know that she does sincerely try to encourage dialogue between the West and the Muslim World. I also think that we've witnessed quite enough mindless insults to the Islamic world over the last few years and don't need any more. But in her eagerness, she fails to see that she has turned herself into a dhimmi. That she has allied herself with the fundamentalists. That she made common cause with the extremists, with violence, with backwardness, with censorship.
This is not an isolated incident.
This all at the expense of moderate, liberal Muslims. At the expense of the free flow of ideas, within the West, and between the West and Islam. At the expense of a liberal literate and academic climate in the West. And how many people read this month on game sites that 'Islamist Censorship reaches America'? And think to themselves: 'these Muslim barbarians are at it again...'?
I trollified this story in a neo-Fragonian rant when I first posted it. I laid blame solely with the multiculturalists. I would, I am on a publicly announced crusade against them. Call it silly for all you want - it is indeed. Trolling even. Be irritated about that all you want.
But...is it more silly, is it more single-sided, than a big blind spot for leftist damage to diversity and our dealings with Islam? To present this particular self-censorship debacle as 'Islamist censorship' is to partake in a discourse that turns a blind eye to censorship of Western origin. But no more of that.
How to defeat Islamist terrorism, threats and fear - Banquo is running another thread on that. How does one defeat the related subject of censorship? By stubbornly promoting an open society. Here, and abroad.
If Islamists are a threat, then we need to ally ourselves with liberal Islam. It is of a vast number, lest we forget. There is a big Muslim middle class. In Europe, and in many Islamic countries. Mortgage bills and MTV, not goats or bearded mullahs are on the minds of moderates.
Getting late. I'll close by requoting Banquo's and mine second favourite journalist:
We need to acknowledge the double-standard – and that it will cost Muslims in the end. Insulating a religion from criticism – surrounding it with an electric fence called "respect" – keeps it stunted at its most infantile and fundamentalist stage.
Ayatollah Khomeini, one time instigator of the fatwa against Rushdie, is a thousand times more responsible for the pulling of Ms Sherry Jones' book than a thousand Ms Spellbergs could ever be.
Exactly the other way around, the finger-hand principle. As long as the Spellbergs are willing to give in they are a thousand times more responsible for the decline of the west then any hatebeard. Let's look at where a call for BLOOD changes something, when a mullah in Iran demands something, does anything change there? Nope. Same old madness. If someone listens here does something change here? Damn straight it does. Each and every time.
Adrian II
08-25-2008, 10:04
Exactly the other way around, the finger-hand principle. As long as the Spellbergs are willing to give in they are a thousand times more responsible for the decline of the west then any hatebeard. Let's look at where a call for BLOOD changes something, when a mullah in Iran demands something, does anything change there? Nope. Same old madness. If someone listens here does something change here? Damn straight it does. Each and every time.The mullahs have political clout, their words are heeded by millions of followers and they can have massive consequences. See Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq, etcetera. They are a factor in world politics.
And that's why we have dhimmis. If the mullahs were not a factor in world politics, it wouldn't be worthwhile for self-hating westerners to kow-tow to them.
The mullahs have political clout, their words are heeded by millions of followers and they can have massive consequences. See Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq, etcetera. They are a factor in world politics.
And that's why we have dhimmis. If the mullahs were not a factor in world politics, it wouldn't be worthwhile for self-hating westerners to kow-tow to them.
The concensus-culture of the west, we like to sit down and talk it over but as far as I am concerned there is really nothing to discuss, america is a free country and they will just have to put that in their beard and shave it. Because we always want to cater everyone we are always looking to please all party's but that is of no use when the other party is so rigid, always leads to the flexible party giving in to demands for a days worth of comfortable bliss, we do this so you don't do that, no way screw them. They are a major factor in world politics but I don't care about the islamic world and neither should you. But this Perlman character is of a different breed, what happened here is just pre-emptive dhimmitude for convenience's sake nothing else, she's scared. And let's also not forget about the self-loathing westener who got programmed with the belief that all change is for the better as long as something changes, and will welcome all change before it loses it's momentum. We should just say this is us, be what you want and if you don't like it come and get us. Now I understand this is a simplification of epic proportions but I am talking of a mindset.
Adrian II
08-25-2008, 11:13
The concensus-culture of the west, we like to sit down and talk it over but as far as I am concerned there is really nothing to discuss [..]We are discussing freedom of expression here. And we are disussing the reasons why some want to curtail it, dhimmitude being one of those reasons.
But this Perlman character is of a different breed, what happened here is just pre-emptive dhimmitude for convenience's sake nothing else, she's scared.Scared of what exactly?
Scared of what exactly?
Attention probably. Or a label. Certainly not physical harm. Congratulations ms Perlmen, attention and a label.
What I was trying to say that this dhimmitude, or self-islamisation happens because of our concensus-culture, Louis wants to ' ally' with the liberal islam, but that is a qui pro quo situation where there is really nothing to discuss. In the end it will be us growing towards them instead of the other way around. All these small compromises seem so harmless and small on theirselves but when added up it something else entirily.
edit, got to expand a little; Let's take the liberal muslim, should I congratulate him on the fact that he doesn't want to kill me? Is that an achievement or anything? They should be our natural allies in this, and I think they are I expect them to be quite normal. Most I know are. So are we going to hide behind them, let them explain to the beards that in a western country certain things are expected? Why are we even treating them as a conversation-partner for something that should be obvious? That is also self-islamisation because it's creating a paralel society by walking away from responsibility of keeping up our values. Now I don't mind a paralel society, all that should ever be expected is that they behave well and can provide for themselve, all the rest is voluntary they don't have to do a bloody thing other then that just like everybody else. Don't want to hire non-muslims fine, want a segregrated pool, build one. But everyone is so eager to give it a place, like they need it to be part of society, it's a bloody religion for god's sake. We don't do that for the hindu's, nor do they ask. But idiots like Perlman give them the idea that there is something negotionable going on, there isn't. Untill here and no further, wisest word ever.
on a semi related note -
the son of a top hamas d00d has converted to christianity and lives in america:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/palestinianauthority/2613399/Mosab-Hassan-Yousef-son-of-Hamas-leader-becomes-a-Christian.html
Adrian II
08-25-2008, 15:16
What I was trying to say that this dhimmitude, or self-islamisation happens because of our concensus-culture, Louis wants to ' ally' with the liberal islam, but that is a qui pro quo situation where there is really nothing to discuss. In the end it will be us growing towards them instead of the other way around. All these small compromises seem so harmless and small on theirselves but when added up it something else entirily. I see. So now Louis is a dhimmi, too? :rolleyes:
I get your point though. But you don't get mine (or Louis'), which is that we should support liberal Islam in its struggle with illiberal Islam. This does not require any compromises on core values, because liberal Islam already shares these core values. And always has, going back even longer than some western cultures..
I see. So now Louis is a dhimmi, too? :rolleyes:
I get your point though. But you don't get mine (or Louis'), which is that we should support liberal Islam in its struggle with illiberal Islam. This does not require any compromises on core values, because liberal Islam already shares these core values. And always has, going back even longer than some western cultures..
Don't see why. Let them sort out their own mess, we should just deal with the excesses. What you and Louis want is outscourcing the problem, but we have the means to deal with it.
For AdrianII, from Pat Condel, he says it much better then I ever could https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIq7tsVvEoY
God I love this guy and his steamroller sarcasm. When I grow up I one to be just like him.
Adrian II
10-02-2008, 10:20
Well, the results of the islamist jury are in. It seems that the London publisher of the Sherry Jones book had a petrol bomb thrown into his Islington home (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/sep/29/uksecurity.ukcrime) last weekend by what Police called' fanatics'. Not by Ms Spellberg, apparently, nor any other real or perceived dhimmi.
Ironically Ms Spellberg is now accused of inciting Muslims to violence in response to the publication of the book.
No doubt Louis and Fragony will tell us that this is true, that Muslims are inherently incapable of selecting their own targets or committing their own crimes, and that they need a Ms Spellberg to do this for them.
My own view is that both historically and logically, the cycle of islamist violence and western dhimmitude started with the former, the latter being a spin-off of islamist 'power projection' into the West. That without Ayatollah Khomeini there would have been no Rushdie affair and without the Van Gogh murder there would be no Spellberg dhimmi.
Does anyone have any scintillatingly, titillatingly fresh views on the issue?
Tribesman
10-02-2008, 10:44
So when someone says.....
Does anyone have any scintillatingly, titillatingly fresh views on the issue?
and a reply comes ...
It's England. ....
it says a lot doesn't it .:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Kadagar_AV
10-02-2008, 11:29
Sure, Muhammed gets some unwarranted flames... Some is however true.
Like him being a pedophile.
According to islamic texts, he had sex with a 9 year old girl.
It is also known that one of his wifes gave birth when she was 13, this probably mean she was 12 when they had sex (probably even younger, but that we dont know for sure, so let us stick to facts).
The defense to his actions from believers of the islamic faith is that "it was a different culture back then", this is of course true.
However, sticking your penis in a nine year old girl is sticking your penis in a nine year old girl, and you cant be surprised if this practise is frowned upon in modern society.
Please however, note that the western culture was not much better... The greeks in particular had a taste for young boys in the ancient period.
So when someone says.....
and a reply comes .......
it says a lot doesn't it .:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
3 on the tribes-scale, not bad, not bad at all ~;)
Tribesman
10-02-2008, 12:05
Sure, Muhammed gets some unwarranted flames...
I thought it was the publisher who got the unwarrented flames....but the police were waiting for them .
Please however, note that the western culture was not much better...
I am glad you mentioned that , I wouldn't want to have to mention european men marrying 2 year olds during that period and having offspring as soon as the child bride was able to concieve.
However, sticking your penis in a nine year old girl is sticking your penis in a nine year old girl, and you cant be surprised if this practise is frowned upon in modern society.
It depends on what you call a modern society , last week a group in what could be called the biggest modern society in the western world said that sexual consent begins at puberty .:inquisitive:
Incongruous
10-02-2008, 20:53
It's England.
Yeah, so?
Just pointing out the obvious are we?
Koga No Goshi
10-02-2008, 21:23
First off, stop with the self-righteous monolithic characterizations of a "left" in America that wants to kowtow to radical Islam and bring over Sharia and do book bannings and stuff. I know quite a lot of what you would call femmi-nazis who would have an axe to grind near your collective crotches if you suggested the left is all friendly on extremist Islamic social culture. As far as I'm concerned the elements of Islam that want to come over and ban makeup or books or sexy movies or whatever, have much more in common with the American religious right than they do with me or my political affiliations. So stop playing pass the hot potato. It doesn't much matter to me if it's a Christian mom's group or a Muslim group trying to ban my videogames and R-Rated movies, I'm against both of them.
My two cents.
P.S. if we are talking about hate sites, hate groups, sites intentionally mistranslating the Qu'ran or showing translations of it in spliced around order to make it look like the preparation of 7alal food really refers to the decapitation of disbelievers and such, of which there is MUCH in English language around the net, then free speech does not apply to regulating, fining, or shutting those down according to our laws.
Tribesman
10-02-2008, 21:32
sorry Frag , but I thought that was your description of your country:dizzy2:
sorry Frag , but I thought that was your description of your country:dizzy2:
Used to be, things change. Watch us. We are getting back at our tolerant roots, that means no place for intolerance.
Tribesman
10-02-2008, 22:10
Watch us. We are getting back at our tolerant roots, that means no place for intolerance.
So does that mean that you will be teling the disabled that they can't be gay because they ain't able to decide and that poofs children can't take part inthe parade because poofs can't be allowed children
So does that mean that you will be teling the disabled that they can't be gay
Nope, but I won't be telling people with down syndrome that they are gay. But what does that have to do with the subject, comes down to this, political correctness has outstayed it's welcome here. It isn't fashionable anymore, you used to be a cosmopolitan champion if you were without doubt, now you are considered to be a fool that is completily out of touch with reality, and nobody wants to be that. Even the leftist parties are saying exactly what I have been saying for years, the very discussion they worked so hard on to silence, the left has never had an argument all they had was moral blackmail and that is gone. It's so incredibly pathetic how they are trying to surf the waves right now, suddenly trying to be tough 'let's just say it' such disgusting oppertunism.
Incongruous
10-02-2008, 22:49
Hahaha!
Good lord Frag, I see more hate frothing from your crazed posts towards England than any Muslim I have ever met.
Koga No Goshi
10-02-2008, 22:51
Hahaha!
Good lord Frag, I see more hate frothing from your crazed posts towards England than any Muslim I have ever met.
I think he's earning points towards his American citizenship through irrational hate of most of Europe and unabashed adoration of America.
Tribesman
10-02-2008, 22:59
political correctness has outstayed it's welcome here
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::lau gh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Since when have I done political correctness ?:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
sorry Frag , but saying poeple are talking crap when they are talking crap ain't political correctness .
Now of course in this forum I cannot say that applies directly to yourself and your writings.....so I leave it to others to judge for themselves how many of your "OMG" topics really rely on facts and real events instead of bullexcrement .
Hahaha!
Found a candy?
England is the example of political correctness gone insane. Sorry for being so overly graphic but the english language is just too much fun to play with.
Sorry Tribes but it does, even AdrianII would probably comfirm my post, probably just as disgusted as me just for other reasons.
Rhyfelwyr
10-02-2008, 23:03
Wow Frags you just blew the Tribesman smilie-scale into overload, I'll never top that!
:jawdrop:
Seriously though enough with the constant left-bashing. What is it you hate so much about it? Is it just the liberal left champagne socialists? Or does it extend to the old-style Trade Unionists?
Tribesman
10-02-2008, 23:10
Wow Frags you just blew the Tribesman smilie-scale into overload, I'll never top that!
You could , just try a topic on scripture race and slavery:eyebrows::eyebrows:
Sorry Tribes but it does, even AdrianII would probably comfirm my post, probably just as disgusted as me just for other reasons.
Ah there you go Frag , why you always fail . You get disgusted but do so in a disgusting manner and allow your disgust to throw out crap yet insist its the real truth
Koga No Goshi
10-02-2008, 23:11
Wow Frags you just blew the Tribesman smilie-scale into overload, I'll never top that!
:jawdrop:
Seriously though enough with the constant left-bashing. What is it you hate so much about it? Is it just the liberal left champagne socialists? Or does it extend to the old-style Trade Unionists?
A claim that the ideological left is somehow inherently more vicious and aggressive and vile in its rhetoric towards the ideological right.... precious.
Wow Frags you just blew the Tribesman smilie-scale into overload, I'll never top that!
:jawdrop:
Seriously though enough with the constant left-bashing. What is it you hate so much about it? Is it just the liberal left champagne socialists? Or does it extend to the old-style Trade Unionists?
The left got what they wanted decades ago, now they should piss off and stop trying to sabotage society because they need to keep justifying their existance. They are worse then a parasite they are a cancer.
sorry Tribes, again, the dutch labour party is at a historical low, even that blond mozart is now bigger then them.
Tribesman
10-02-2008, 23:25
The left got what they wanted decades ago, now they should piss off and stop trying to sabotage society because they need to keep justifying their existance. They are worse then a parasite they are a cancer.
Too true, its the left with their free marketism and loathing of regulatory oversight that is bringing western society to its knees:yes:
Too true, its the left with their free marketism and loathing of regulatory oversight that is bringing western society to its knees:yes:
No it is the left with their multicultural religion only a complete idiot doesn't see that.
Rhyfelwyr
10-02-2008, 23:31
No it is the left with their multicultural religion only a complete idiot doesn't see that.
Gah! So I suppose Muslims are to blame for the current state of Wall Street?
In any case if you wish to rant at multiculturalists then you will find it is free-marketers who push that agenda in the UK.
Koga No Goshi
10-02-2008, 23:32
No it is the left with their multicultural religion only a complete idiot doesn't see that.
Only an idiot doesn't see what? That the west should have state religions? Or a complete ban on any religion? What are you talking about? You're throwing out tropes to the people who seem to already know what you're talking about and agree. I don't see what it is exactly that you are proposing.
Gah! So I suppose Muslims are to blame for the current state of Wall Street?
que? As in how did we just get there?
And no, free marketeers just want cheap labour, the social engineers of the multicult are a whole lot more ambitious then that.
Koga No Goshi
10-02-2008, 23:40
que? As in how did we just get there?
And no, free marketeers just want cheap labour, the social engineers of the multicult are a whole lot more ambitious then that.
How do you get the cheap labor? You let immigrants in. You're sliding past the issue. I don't know how you can write off capitalists wanting cheap labor supplies and then oppose multiculturalism. What do you want? To be Saudi Arabia and let them in as a third-rate worker class in tent cities, never letting their foul culture infect the mainstream?
Tribesman
10-02-2008, 23:43
No it is the left with their multicultural religion only a complete idiot doesn't see that.
Oh sorry Frag , I didn't realise that the biggest screw up that is wrecking the world economy was really the Muslims under your bed that are out to get ya .
Thanks for the warning:2thumbsup:
Gah! So I suppose Muslims are to blame for the current state of Wall Street?
Of course it is , Osama got a bunch of Saudis to attempt to wreck the heartland of American capitalism..,it is now pretty much wrecked , and by extension so is much of the rest of the western world , tjherefore it is not just Muslims who are trying and succeeding in wrecking the economy , its the really fruity ones.....which is all of them isn't it because a Muslim is a Muslim afer all isn't he(or she but they don't count as they cannot leave the kitchen in a traditional conservative sense)
Louis VI the Fat
10-02-2008, 23:47
Well, the results of the islamist jury are in. It seems that the London publisher of the Sherry Jones book had a petrol bomb thrown into his Islington home (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/sep/29/uksecurity.ukcrime) last weekend by what Police called' fanatics'. Not by Ms Spellberg, apparently, nor any other real or perceived dhimmi.
Ironically Ms Spellberg is now accused of inciting Muslims to violence in response to the publication of the book.
No doubt Louis and Fragony will tell us that this is true, that Muslims are inherently incapable of selecting their own targets or committing their own crimes, and that they need a Ms Spellberg to do this for them.
My own view is that both historically and logically, the cycle of islamist violence and western dhimmitude started with the former, the latter being a spin-off of islamist 'power projection' into the West. That without Ayatollah Khomeini there would have been no Rushdie affair and without the Van Gogh murder there would be no Spellberg dhimmi.
Does anyone have any scintillatingly, titillatingly fresh views on the issue?A fresh view? No, I don't have a fresh view. I have but a repeat of my scintillatingly, tittillatingly truthful insights to offer.
A change from the abstract to the concrete doesn't make a difference for this case. This thread has never been a theoretical exercise, but a living debate about very real phenomena. Arsony by Islamic extremists doesn't add gravitas, never mind a new angle, to this saga. It has always been about this.
A brief recapitulation:
Thread wants to discuss Islamist censorship. Later expanded to how to defend against said censorship. The Frag-Frog Front states that thread picked ambiguous example, and exposes the dhimmitude that, to a controversial extent, is co-responsible for this latest installment of Islamist censorship.
Trolling by the FFF? No. The thread says 'reaches America'. This is not about Pakistan, or Saudi Arabia. This is about the West. And in the West, and to an extent: beyond, Islamism needs to be discussed within the context of a dominant non-Islamic society. And the reaction of this society.
Why, indeed Islamism preceeds and can function independently of dhimmitude. Historically and logically and semantically. In fact, apart from this particular example, I do not think that Adrian and Louis have different opinions as much as different priorities. In another year, my irritation could've been over the Islamists. However, I'm tired of discussing Islamists. 'Totalitarian enemies of the open society' would be the the end all of it for me.
Just like in 1975 I might have grown tired of debating the merits of the Soviet Union and might've been more interested in the ideological blindness of leftist western academia.
Overt Western sensitivity to, covert fascination for, and pandering to, Muslim extremists is a betrayal of both moderate Islam and the liberal West. And actively seeking out and stimulating Islamists demands is Dhimmitude. This case is a godsend for the FFF, since it shows the woeful effects of dhimmitude so well. I for one would not exclude the possibility that Ms Spellberg is indeed responsible for inciting Muslims to violence.
Between a publication and Islamic reaction always lay several different steps. The upheaval over the Danish cartoons didn't start when they were published. Islamist reaction came six months later, after a deliberate campaign.
Similarly, there are dozens of biographies and fictionalised accounts of Muhammed available out there. Why is this one singled out?
Nobody had yet read the book. It wasn't publically available. So the arsonists had to rely on what they thought the book is about. And this, they based on a public image of the book. Namely, that this work is 'an insulting pornographic account of Muhammed!!!11!!'. This image of the book originated with Ms Spellberg.
What's more, she treaded a very thin line indeed between warning for violent consequences and instigating violent consequences.
How do you get the cheap labor? You let immigrants in. You're sliding past the issue. I don't know how you can write off capitalists wanting cheap labor supplies and then oppose multiculturalism. What do you want? To be Saudi Arabia and let them in as a third-rate worker class in tent cities, never letting their foul culture infect the mainstream?
Multiculturalism is more then people living somewhere together, like any religion it is an utopia where the 'priests' will alter reality to eventually get to that 100% they believe in, when something doesn't quite work out as they want to, like muslims in europe, they will downplay the problems, silence opposition, experiment with rediculous solutions, because they need it to be perfect.
Tribesman
10-02-2008, 23:55
they will downplay the problems, silence opposition, experiment with rediculous solutions, because they need it to be perfect.
OK enough about George Bush frag , get used to it he is very nearly out of office
Incongruous
10-02-2008, 23:58
que? As in how did we just get there?
And no, free marketeers just want cheap labour, the social engineers of the multicult are a whole lot more ambitious then that.
I'm sorry, but as someone who is often concerned with the scale of immigration into the UK I must point out that is was those buggers in search of ever bigger profits for ever smaller workloads that foistered that one on us. Leaving the indiginous worker to either accept smaller pay or see their jobs being given to the next lot of poor bugger just shipped. So don't go on speading fallacies.
Koga No Goshi
10-02-2008, 23:58
Multiculturalism is more then people living somewhere together, like any religion it is an utopia where the 'priests' will alter reality to eventually get to that 100% they believe in, when something doesn't quite work out as they want to, like muslims in europe, they will downplay the problems, silence opposition, experiment with rediculous solutions, because they need it to be perfect.
What are you talking about? I think you would find that a majority of multiculturalists don't agree with overturning the law of the land to accomodate every small fringe. (We do it selectively, such as here with the Amish, but we don't do it for almost everyone else.) You are drawing a black and white dichotomy between total lockdown of anything but the mainstream culture, and enforced multiculturalism where you have to look the other way when Muslims toss bombs or refuse to take their scarves off for the police. I agree with the sentiment earlier though.... have newspapers and other publications casually put up pictures of Jesus sodomizing young boys, or cutting the heads off of non-Christians, and see how the Christian community reacts. I don't think it would be the calm, nonviolent, rational reaction that you seem to expect.
I'm sorry, but as someone who is often concerned with the scale of immigration into the UK I must point out that is was those buggers in search of ever bigger profits for ever smaller workloads that foistered that one on us. Leaving the indiginous worker to either accept smaller pay or see their jobs being given to the next lot of poor bugger just shipped. So don't go on speading fallacies.
Yup, this one is to blame on free marketeers and capitalism, not multiculturalism. In America it was the Irish, the Germans, the Russians, the Italians, the Chinese, the Mexicans. When public sentiment would get one banned or restricted it would just get replaced with another. If you *really* want to sidestep the "chaos" of multiculturalism, then you have to have.... *GASP* REGULATIONS! Protectionist policies that reward companies that produce domestically using domestic labor, as opposed to cheap factories overseas or industries employing large numbers of substandard wage earning unskilled immigrant labor. But we can't have regulation! No no no no no no no!
OK enough about George Bush frag , get used to it he is very nearly out of office
Is that a towel or are you just not happy to see me?
But we can't have regulation! No no no no no no no!
Indeed, we shouldn't especially since this is not an economical issue no matter how hard you two are trying to make it one, it's about culture and identity.
Talk about beating a dead horse then trying to revive it.....
Koga No Goshi
10-03-2008, 03:41
Is that a towel or are you just not happy to see me?
But we can't have regulation! No no no no no no no!
Indeed, we shouldn't especially since this is not an economical issue no matter how hard you two are trying to make it one, it's about culture and identity.
Okay, you admitted it, you have no argument. You wave a hand dismissing free marketers from bringing in immigrant labor as a source of cheap wage work. But then you rail about multiculturalism. Provide your specific outline for how exactly a society should have access to cheap labor and avoid multiculturalism (or oppress it, more likely), or else stop complaining about it in some vague sort of way we can't discuss or address.
Okay, you admitted it, you have no argument. You wave a hand dismissing free marketers from bringing in immigrant labor as a source of cheap wage work. But then you rail about multiculturalism. Provide your specific outline for how exactly a society should have access to cheap labor and avoid multiculturalism (or oppress it, more likely), or else stop complaining about it in some vague sort of way we can't discuss or address.
No, you can't read.
Koga No Goshi
10-03-2008, 07:45
No, you can't read.
I assure you I can, but all you are giving is vague one-liners.
I assure you I can, but all you are giving is vague one-liners.
It would be great if I actually had to defend my point, but some seem mentally incapable of seeing the point, it's what we call the leftist blind spot I guess it comes with the condition, I should know by now that it's an excersise in futility but it never ceases to amaze me.
Koga No Goshi
10-03-2008, 08:11
It would be great if I actually had to defend my point, but some seem mentally incapable of seeing the point, it's what we call the leftist blind spot I guess it comes with the condition, I should know by now that it's an excersise in futility but it never ceases to amaze me.
So in other words, those who know all my code words and already agree with me require no explanation, and if you don't already agree with me, you have a mental block as a leftist.
Still, not an argument.
So in other words, those who know all my code words and already agree with me require no explanation, and if you don't already agree with me, you have a mental block as a leftist.
Still, not an argument.
Against knowing better I'll just repeat myselve.
Multiculturalism is more then people living somewhere together, like any religion it is an utopia where the 'priests' will alter reality to eventually get to that 100% they believe in, when something doesn't quite work out as they want to, like muslims in europe, they will downplay the problems, silence opposition, experiment with rediculous solutions, because they need it to be perfect.
Koga No Goshi
10-03-2008, 08:28
Against knowing better I'll just repeat myselve.
Multiculturalism is more then people living somewhere together, like any religion it is an utopia where the 'priests' will alter reality to eventually get to that 100% they believe in, when something doesn't quite work out as they want to, like muslims in europe, they will downplay the problems, silence opposition, experiment with rediculous solutions, because they need it to be perfect.
Can you give a specific example? I saw you say this before, but I wasn't 100% sure what you meant exactly. Downplay what problems and silence what opposition?
Can you give a specific example? I saw you say this before, but I wasn't 100% sure what you meant exactly. Downplay what problems and silence what opposition?
Well things are changing, but for exmaple it used to be absolutily unheard of to point out the dominant position of immigrants in crime statistics, it was absolutily unheard of to question mass immigration of illiterates from medievalstan. These things could not be talked about that was political suicide, so nothing was being done.
Koga No Goshi
10-03-2008, 08:57
Well things are changing, but for exmaple it used to be absolutily unheard of to point out the dominant position of immigrants in crime statistics, it was absolutily unheard of to question mass immigration of illiterates from medievalstan. These things could not be talked about that was political suicide, so nothing was being done.
Here in the U.S. that is a sensitive topic too. One of the problems is that coverage of crime is pretty misleading because what can fit into a 5 minute news segment always leaves out context. For instance, it's been pointed out many times that while in the U.S. you can point to high black crime rates, what's often not mentioned is that black men are more often the victims of crimes than the perpetrators. I'm not a statistician and I haven't extensively delved into the topic but just making up one possible explanation off the top of my head, is that you might have 1 black guy going out and committing 12 crimes per week, and 8 of them against other black people who themselves aren't criminals. Something like that, anyway. But if you just report the total number of crimes and what race the perpetrators were, it looks like every black man is out there robbing everyone, when that isn't true.
The other thing is poverty. I do not believe that a "culture" leads one to crime. I think (no offense Fragony, not assigning this to you, there's a whole history of this out there) that it is a thinly veiled move away from saying race is genetically linked with crime, whereas that kind of overt racism and defining human behavior in terms of race quickly became very unacceptable academically after World War II and eugenics and all that. So now we talk about "cultures" causing crime instead of race, it's just sort of subtly saying the same thing but avoiding the race connotations. At any rate, sociologically speaking, crime is vastly more correlated in a much more easily observable way with poverty and social status within society, than it is with culture or race. Back in the 1800's when Irish were the immigrant newly arrived poverty stricken unskilled laborer group in the U.S., it was Irish people women crossed the street and clutched their moneypurses tighter around; today it's blacks or maybe Mexicans.
Just taking crime as an example of a problem from "multiculturalism", though I am not sure if maybe there are other issues you didn't bring up, I think really multiculturalism is not the problem there. Having a ghetto-dwelling underclass is. And if your economy is such that, within a generation or two, newly arrived first generation immigrants can put their kids in good colleges or get business loans and move up, and move into the middle class, you will see crime take a nosedive in that generation. But if you have a steadily arriving new wave of immigrants who start out at the very bottom of the economic pyramid all the time, yeah, there is going to be crime. But that's a socioeconomic issue, not a cultural one. If the Netherlands suffered an economic collapse and tens of thousands of you guys were moving to other countries and taking jobs at the bottom of the economy, there would be a swell in white crime in those countries too. Until you guys moved into the middle class.
I guess, basically, in the specific case of crime, I do not see how having more than one culture present in a society is the cause. It just appears that way because probably in many European countries, at this present time, the poorest underclass are frequently immigrants from Muslim countries.
Problems major and small should be adressed, in a climate of political correctness that wasn't possible. Now we see something else, in their electoral panic the leftist party's have suddenly grow cojones and are oppertunistically saying the exact same thing Pim Fortuyn did while making it appear they reinvented the wheel (if you want a very specific example, that is probably the most illustrative, the most blatant hate campaign I ever saw), also the treatment Hirschi Ali got when she pointed out that the position of women is far from perfect in the muslim society, suddenly she was no longer the champion who fought her way up from the ranks in a deeply racist society, she was now a sexually frustrated minx who projected her insecurities on muslims, that is how it works here blaming the messenger is easier then adressing the problems. It is a suffocating climate where nothing gets done. The problems are minor it really comes down to a few hundred annoying but pretty harmless youths, the reaction completily whack.
Koga No Goshi
10-03-2008, 10:08
Sounds like a mess. Remember though in fairness that even in the west, if a woman questions the status or role of women in their culture they're called everything from lesbians to man-hating femminazis. That is not to say the West and the Muslim world are equivalent on issues of women's rights. But it is to say that we are not perfect and we react with quite a lot of hostility when called out, as well.
Sounds like a mess.
Not really, our problems are wildly exaggerated, crime is low and you can count radical muslims on a hand. Let's take crime for example. All that needs to be done is apply the law, it or rascals aged 14/18 that are incredibly annoying and a terror for the neighbourhoods but just applying the law would suffice, but what happens and I am not kidding, they get a holiday to marocco to catch butterflies. Apparently that would greatly bring them to new insights, somehow. Over 10 organisation are apparently needed to organise a trip to marocco, that is how things work here, until next eections that is where the left will be sweeped away. As for radical islam that is another matter, that would get us on track, the strange phenomena that is dhimmitude and self-islamisation, it is pure clientism for a percieved problem, but the consequences are potentially disastrous.
Adrian II
10-04-2008, 10:13
The upheaval over the Danish cartoons didn't start when they were published. Islamist reaction came six months later, after a deliberate campaign.A deliberate campaign by islamists from Denmark, not by Danish dhimmis.
It has always been thus. In the very first case of this kind, the fatwa on Rushdie's book, the problem started after islamists in Bradford, United Kingdom, burned it publicly to draw attention to what they considered to be its blasphemous nature. Khomeini only caught on to it much later, when he saw the supposed political capital to be made from it.
Koga No Goshi is right that the only true allies of the islamists in the West are certain Christians, more than certain leftists. The fellow-travelling lefties only use them, the Christians actually respect them. Oh ye faint of heart and brain! Remember Navaros, who would rather side with Al Queda in Iraq than with the U.S. soldiers there.
should be noted that the Danes gave them a major screw you.
I think we should make a destinction between the two different types of dhimmitude; the soft version, clientism/self-islamisation, and the hard one, dhimmitude out of fear. The latter is virtually inexistant and thus relativily harmless, it's a muslim problem in the muslim world but that don't affect us in any way.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.